December
6, 2000

GORE,
BUSH, AND THE IMPERIAL STYLE

What
the attempted coup d'etat now in progress illustrates,
aside from the personal ambition of Al Gore, is how
and why a nation makes the transition from a republic
to an empire. I look at Al Gore, George W. Bush, and
Bill Clinton and see Pompey,
Crassus, and Caesar. People ask me: "How did this
happen?" They cry out: "Have we really come to this?"
and I can only think of Garet
Garrett, the Old
Right author and prophet who foretold the coming
of the American Imperium half a century ago. His 1952
polemic, Rise of Empire, begins with the observation
that

"We
have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and
Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make
a single stroke between day and night: the precise moment
does not matter. There was no painted sign to say: 'You
are now entering Imperium.' Yet it was a very old road and
the voice of history was saying: 'Whether you know it or
not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.' And now,
not far ahead, is a sign that reads: 'No U-turns.'"

But
the precise moment does matter, at least to those
who live through it, and I believe we have arrived at just
such a juncture. It was a long time coming. Garrett saw
that the transformation of the old Republic into an Empire
in everything but name was a "revolution within the form."
That is, the founding documents and traditions of the old
Republic were kept around, for old time's sake, but they
were either reinterpreted out of existence (the Constitution),
or else completely ignored. In the formal sense, the chief
executive officer was only the First Citizen of a republic;
but, over time  after two world wars and a fifty-year
"cold" war  the American President became an Emperor
in all but name. It is easy to speak of "imperialism" 
a favorite catchword of the Marxists, who use it as a synonym
for capitalism  but what, really, is an empire?
Garrett addressed this question, and decided that you could,
indeed, have an empire "with or without a constitution,
even with the form of a republican constitution," and "also
you may have Empire with or without an emperor." Colonies
were not a prerequisite, either: look at Athens, which planted
colonies as a tree drops its seeds. Nor was war, or even
territorial expansion the mark of Empire: these, after all,
characterize "the history of any kind of state that was
ever known." No, an empire, as a system of organizing and
perpetuating the State, has characteristics peculiar to
itself, and the first one is: "The executive power
of government shall be dominant." [emphasis in original].
A republican form of government, with a carefully balanced
division of powers, could generate a military power sufficient
to acquire an empire: Napoleonic France, and the history
of the US in modern times, are proof enough of that. But
in making this tremendous effort, a republic would be transformed
into something else: in the case of the US, no longer the
limited government envisioned by the Founders, but an imperial
Leviathan whose domain extends from sea to shining sea:
that is, from the Red Sea to the Caspian Sea to the South
China Sea  and beyond.

The
constitutional system devised by the Founders "worked,"
wrote Garrett,

"and
worked extremely well, for the Republic. It would not work
for Empire, because what Empire needs above all in government
is an executive power that can make immediate decisions,
such as a decision in the middle of the night by the President
to declare war on the aggressor in Korea, or, on the opposite
side, a decision by the Politburo in the Kremlin, perhaps
also in the middle of the night, to move a piece on the
chess board of cold war."

CONSERVATIVE
COLLABORATORS

Before
Harry Truman sent Americans
into battle and only consulted Congress after the fact,
the power to declare war had rested solely with the elected
representatives of the people. It was a precedent that appalled
Garrett, and his fellow Old Rightists, but by that time
they were old men on the knife-edge of mortality, living
ghosts haunting the world of the living with their prophecies
of usurpation and American decline. A few years after the
publication of Garrett's pamphlet, the "New" Right of William
F. Buckley, Jr., and a coven of ex-Communists,
arose to endorse and even accelerate the taxes, the expenditures,
the centralization of power required to fight the cold war.
Conservatives who had once agitated for the abolition of
the income tax became, instead, advocates of a less onerous
tax increase in comparison to their liberal opponents. And
so the terms of the debate shifted inevitably in the direction
of big government, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but
always the movement was in the same direction. Conservatives,
in any case a pessimistic lot, were reinforced in their
inclinations, and they accepted their fate, which was to
stave off the worst  and, also, to expect the worst.

REVOLUTION
WITHIN THE FORM

By
the time the cold war ended, and the Soviet Union lay in
ruins, the worst had already happened. The revolution within
the form was nearly complete. The US President stood astride
the world, monarch of a domain that exceeded the dreams
of Alexander.
A single executive order could make or break fortunes, spare
or spend human lives. A contest for such an office must
become a death-struggle if only because the stakes are so
high: the fate of nations rests on the question of who gets
to put his feet up on the presidential desk in the Oval
Office. Such a prize is not given up so easily, and it was
inevitable that someone like Al Gore would come along and
at least threaten to cross
the Rubicon. The Founders foresaw  and greatly
feared  the coming of such a demagogue, but even if
it looks as if he is only a would-be Napoleon, and will
never get to place
the crown on his own head, another one will come along
and succeed where Gore failed. The imperial Presidency is
invested with so much power, both domestically and internationally,
that aspirants will do anything to win office 
including vote fraud, vote suppression, even redefining
the very concept of voting from an act to an intention.
This crisis has stretched the institutions of the old republic
to the breaking point: next time, that creaking sound will
give way to a sharp crack. And there will be a next time:
the only question is how soon? Oh boy, I can hardly wait
for the 2004 elections.

WHAT,
ME WORRY?

In
a speech the other day, Colin Powell, putative Secretary
of State, told
his adoring audience that he gets phone calls from generals
in formerly Communist countries asking if he's worried about
the crisis of presidential succession in the US. His answer:

"Not
in the least. You've got to understand that American democracy
is not like the system that you have. American democracy
is kind of like a life raft. It bobs around the ocean all
the time. Your feet are always wet. The winds are always
blowing ... but you never sink.''

HUBRIS

Pride
cometh before a fall. The American ship of state 
surely the biggest, most expensive, most expansive "raft"
in history  is not unsinkable. A republic, so long
as it retains the virtues of its Founders  and at
least some of their vitality  tends to endure, but
an empire naturally decays, like ripened fruit bursting
with the seeds of its own corruption. Like the original
sin of Adam and Eve, who ate of the forbidden fruit, the
temptation to usurp the forms of our constitutional republic
will in the end prove too much for our political leaders
to withstand. Al Gore may be the first in modern times to
succumb to the lure of a coup, legal or otherwise, but he
will hardly be the last. Our future is rife with Al Gores,
not only the original but some even more ambitious
and aggressive models. A more attractive Gore, a candidate
without his alienating ticks, a more truly Kennedy-esque
figure who won the popular vote but lost in the electoral
college  that is the real danger. What this
crisis has shown is that a demagogue with some real charisma
could easily shred what is left of our Constitution, and,
commanding popular support  plus an army of lawyers
 overthrow the rule of law.

NO
POLITICAL SUPPORT TO BUSH

As
longtime readers of this column will know, my opposition
to the Gore coup does not imply any kind of political
support for George W. Bush. While the success of the Gore
coup would signal the end of our old republic, the ascension
of Dubya will exacerbate the same retrograde trend, and
further develop yet another characteristic of Empire: As
Garet put it,

"A
second mark by which you may unmistakably distinguish Empire
is: 'Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.'
That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire.
. . . The fact now to be faced is that it has happened also
to us."

AN
ACT OF WAR?

We
are, Garrett pointed out, "no longer able to choose between
peace and war. We have embraced perpetual war. We are no
longer able to choose the time, the circumstances or the
battlefield." Our 'vital national interests'  as the
bromide goes  are everywhere: on this question
there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The idea that Dubya is somehow less interventionist because
one of his foreign policy advisors  not
his putative Secretary of State  suggested that
we might, someday, pull our troops out of the Balkans,
makes no sense at all. As I pointed out before the election,
the Republicans are in favor of a more focused use
of US military resources: their guns are aimed directly
at the Middle East, specifically at Iraq. Bush is not even
in office yet, and already the janissaries
of Big Oil are calling for a US military strike. In the
Houston Chronicle [December 4], Michael
J. Economides and Ronald
Oligney  professors at the University of Houston,
advisers to Fortune 500 companies and authors of The
Color Of Oil: The History, the Money and the Politics of
the World's Biggest Business  call
on Bush to unleash the dogs of war against Iraq. Why?
Saddam Hussein, it seems, has halted all Iraqi oil exports,
and this  to the two esteemed professors  is
nothing less than an act of war:

"The
growing likelihood of a Bush administration is almost certain
to provoke a vendetta on Saddam's part, renewing the Iraqi
leader's rivalry with the senior Bush, through his son.
Everything is personal in the Middle East, and memories
are long. But there are some significant differences between
1991 and 2001. Saddam's power today, while in military terms
considerably reduced, is magnified many times because the
excess capacity in oil production worldwide is gone"

THE
"REAL" CRISIS

What,
then, shall we do? Stop quibbling over the election and
get down to solving the "real" crisis: an impending
energy crisis. "The emerging situation" we are told, "gives
additional impetus to resolve the electoral fight here and
to prepare for what likely will be a January with an energy
emergency." First, aver the two professors, Bush must "level
with the American people." Sure, we're into energy conservation
and all that stuff, but for the moment, at any rate, hydrocarbon
is king. Secondly, an energy crunch is not really bad
news, indeed, we need to "take credit," because, according
to the learned professors,

"The
current tight energy situation is not a failure of policy
but a direct result of the booming US economy, especially
because of the voracious appetite for more energy by the
new economy. (Today, 20 percent of all power generated is
used by computers and is growing.)"

THE SOLUTION
IS WAR

This
is utter crap, of course, since the tendency in computer design
is toward less energy-use for more computer power,
and not the reverse, but this is just hi-tech window dressing for
the main recommendation of this duo, which is as follows:

"A
military deployment must start immediately. It is an obvious
question whether Saddam's action should be interpreted by the United
States as an act of war. We think the answer is obvious, but in
any case, the time required to respond militarily will not afford
us the luxury to wait. And the excess capacity of the remaining
member-nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
today is essentially zero, so they can provide little if any relief."

THE PERSONAL
IS THE POLITICAL

We
need the oil: now, let us seize it. We don't even need to manufacture
much of a provocation. According to Messrs. Economides and Oligny,
the reason Saddam cut off the oil flow was because he's avidly following
the remarks of Judge Saul, and the deliberations of the US Supreme
Court: he knows Dubya is on his way to the White House and so now
the Iraqi leader is taking his vengeance on the son of the man who
defeated him. "Everything is personal" in the perfervid maelstrom
of the Middle East, the two professors agree: of course, every issue
of international politics (and all politics) is personal in the
sense that it has an effect on the lives of real world individuals.
Such as the real-world children, more
than half a million so far, who have starved to death due to
the Draconian
sanctions imposed by the US and Britain, with support from the United
Nations. Such a calamity is bound to be taken personally by those
who suffer from it, but that this might be even vaguely related
to the halt in Iraqi oil exports is apparently inconceivable to
professors Economides and Oligney..

THE IMPERIAL
STYLE

The
imperial style of leadership is everywhere apparent, and a new age
is upon us. Generals (Colin
Powell, Norman
Schwartzkopf) have become political figures, key figures in
the Republican campaign and with a clear role to play in the new
administration. With Dick
Cheney, the former defense secretary whose business interests
are intertwined with the policy of global intervention, a virtual
co-President, what we are witnessing is the militarization of American
politics, and Garrett predicted this, too: "Another brand mark of
Empire is: 'Ascendancy of the military mind, to such a point
at last that the civilian mind is intimidated,'" he wrote. In
ancient Rome, ambitious commanders went abroad in search of new
lands to conquer, to be greeted on their return with a triumphant
march through the city: in the period of Roman decline, they often
wound up conquering the seat of power. As Garrett put it:

"A
Republic may put its armor on and off. War is an interlude. When
war comes it is a civilian business, conducted under the advice
of military experts. Both in peace and war military experts are
excluded from civilian decisions. But with empire it is different;
Empire must wear its armor. Its life is in the hands of the General
Staff and war is supremely a military business, requiring of the
civilian only acquiescence and loyalty."

ROLL UP
YOUR SLEEVES

Having
averted a coup  although, as of right now, Tuesday,
2:52 PM Pacific Time, this is by no means an absolute certainty
 those who defend and seek to restore our old Republic will
face even greater dangers. Certainly we will be granted no respite
from our labors: in short, things will only get worse. A Bush presidency
will mean a bipartisan
government of national collaboration  there is already
talk of Dubya appointing more than a few Democrats to key spots
in the new administration  and this will mark the final consolidation
of power by a ruthless oligarchy of corporate oligarchs. Divested
of any political constraints, for the next four years the most rapacious
and arrogant ruling elite in world history will be unleashed, and
feelling free to pillage and plunder its way around the world. So
after celebrating the defeat of Gore  if, indeed, we live
to hear his concession speech  and catching a good night's
sleep, the next morning get up, refreshed, and roll up your sleeves,
because there's plenty of work to do. Don't put down that picket
sign, or put away that "Sore-Loserman"
t-shirt: instead, wear the shirt as a political statement and
come up with some new slogans. For starters, how about "Hands off
Iraq!"? For years we have been embargoing Iraqi oil, and insisting
on keeping it off the market  will somebody tell me how the
US has the nerve to blame the Iraqis, of all people, for the alleged
oil "shortage"? The blame belongs squarely on the US and the Brits,
who have bombed Iraq back to the Stone Age and continue bombing
to this day  why the hell should the Iraqis pump a single
gallon of oil? Just to bail out their tormentors?

THE FACE
OF EVIL

This,
then, is the height of imperial arrogance: the expectation that
even those we torture will somehow willingly obey us, and kowtow
to our every whim. And if they don't  annihilation. It's as
simple, and evil, as that.

Please
Support Antiwar.com

A
contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's
out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets
on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism.
Send contributions to